Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.07.23 10:39:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:34739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 300 of 2023 Reserved on 10-7-2025 Delivered on 22- 7-2025 1 - Smt. Parvati Sahu Wd/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Mowa- Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur ..........Claimants, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Radhika Sahu D/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Parvati Sahu (Mother) R/o Mowa- Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajesh Sahu S/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Parvati Sahu (Mother) R/o Mowa- Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Palak Sahu D/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Appellant No. 1 Smt. Parvati Sahu (Mother) R/o Mowa- Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Hemkunwar Sahu W/o Shri Feruram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Mowa- Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Ramkumar Yadav S/o Birsingh Yadav R/o Near Anup Roadlines, Naharpara, Mowa- Kapa, Tahsil And District- Raipur .................(Employer Of The Deceased), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Maruti Heights, 4th Floor, G. E. Road, Tatibandh Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur ..........Insurer, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 2 For appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikas Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Praveen Tulsiyan, Adv. For respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pradeep Rathore, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. MAC No. 112 of 2023 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Thrugh Its Legal Manager, Present Address-4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin-492010 Chhattisgarh. (Appellant/non-Applicant No. 2) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Parvati Sahu Wd/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 27 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Sahu, Respondent No. 1, R/o Mova Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Ku. Radhika Sahu D/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Sahu, Respondent No. 1, R/o Mova Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajesh Sahu S/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Sahu, Respondent No. 1, R/o Mova Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Palak Sahu D/o Late Rohit Sahu Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Sahu, Respondent No. 1, R/o Mova Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Hemkunwar Sahu W/o Shri Feruram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Mova Vidhansabha Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ramkumar Yadav S/o Birsingh R/o Near Anup Road Lines, Naharpara, Mova- Kanpa, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Mr. Vikas Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. For respondent No. 6 Praveen Tulsiyan, Adv. : Mr. Pradeep Rathore, Adv. 3 (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) CAV Order 1 Since both these MACs arise out of same award (hereinafter refereed to as ‘impugned award) dated 29-11-2022 passed in Case No. 26/EC Act/2015/Fatal, by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Labour Court No. 1, Raipur (CG) (hereinafter referred to as
Decision
‘Commissioner’), they are being heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. 2 3 MAC No. 300/2023 has been preferred by the appellant/claimants under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1923’) against the impugned award for enhancement / modification of the awarded amount. MAC No. 112/2023 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company for setting aside the impugned award and exonerating it from liability to pay compensation amount. (hereinafter parties shall be referred to as per their description before the Commissioner) 4 Facts of the case are that, claimant No. 01 Smt. Parvati Sahu, is the widow of deceased Rohit Sahu. Claimant No. 2 Ku. Radhika Sahu and Claimant No. 4 Ku. Palak Sahu are his minor daughters, Claimant No. 3 Rajesh Sahu is his minor son, Claimant No. 5 Smt. Hemkunwar Sahu is his mother, and Claimant No. 06 Feruram Sahu (since deceased) was his father. Non-applicant No. 1 Ram Kumar Yadav was 4 the employer of the deceased employee Rohit Sahu and the registered owner of the Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration no. CG- 04-JA-4441 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), which the deceased was driving at the time of the incident in his capacity as driver. Non-Applicant No. 02 is the insurer of the said vehicle. 4.1 The incident occurred on the night of 01.10.2013 at around 9:30 PM. The deceased had gone from Raipur to Bilaspur in offending vehicle along with the helper to deliver 100 tins of oil. While returning from Bilaspur after unloading the oil, and upon reaching near "Haryana Dhaba" situated at village Kirna, Raipur-Bilaspur road, an unidentified truck/trailer coming from the opposite direction, being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, collided head-on with the vehicle of the deceased and fled towards Bilaspur. Due to the accident, the driver Rohit Sahu sustained serious and fatal injuries on his head and left shoulder, and was admitted to SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for treatment, where he was declared dead. At the time of the incident, the deceased was 28 years old and was earning a monthly salary of 8,000. First Information Report (FIR) regarding the said ₹ accident was registered at Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) under FIR No. 253/13, dated 02.10.2013. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the non-applicant No. 2. The non-applicants have not paid any compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the claimants filed application under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,47,160/-. 5 5 The non-applicant No. 1/ owner of offending vehicle filed his written statement and denied that deceased was his employee. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 was not owner of the offending vehicle, as on 3-9-2013, he had sold the said vehicle to applicant No. 5 Hemkunwar Sahu, who is mother of deceased. 6 Non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company filed its written statement and denied that, the offending vehicle was insured by it at the time of accident. The deceased was not employee of non-applicant No. 1. Deceased was also not given any salary. Therefore, the claim deserves to be dismissed. 7 On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Commissioner framed as many as 9 issues, recorded evidence and vide impugned award, held that, deceased was employee of non-applicant No. 1 and offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 2, hence, they were held liable and awarded compensation amount of Rs.8,47,160/- with 10% interest per annum in favour of claimants subject to the condition that, if compensation is not paid within 60 days till its payment. However, the Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on the non-applicant No. 1. 8 Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 29-11-2022 (Annexure A-1), the claimants and the Insurance company have preferred two separate appeals. 9 MAC No. 300/2023 was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- 6 “1. Whether the Commissioner, Employee Compensation, Labour Court No.1, Raipur (C.G.) was erred in law in not awarding penalty on the amount of compensation granted in favour of the claimants ? 2. Whether the Commissioner, Employee Compensation, Labour Court No.1, Raipur (C.G.) was erred in law in not awarding the interest of 12% from the date of accident ?” The MAC No. 112 of 2023 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law “(a) Whether, the learned Commissioner was justified in holding that deceased died during course of employment? (b). Whether learned Commissioner was justified in holding that the claimants have proved the Employer- Employee relationship between deceased and respondent No.6 ?” 10 Learned counsel for the claimants submits that, though, the Commissioner has granted compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 8,47,160/- in favour of the claimants, but no penalty has been granted against said award, as provided under Section 4-A(3)(b) of the Act of 1923. He further submits that, the Commissioner has granted only 10% interest on amount of compensation, that too, imposing condition that, if amount of compensation is not deposited within 60 days from the date of award, which is against the provisions of Section 4A(3)(a) 7 of the Act, which clearly provides that, 12% interest shall be payable on the amount of compensation and interest shall fall due from the date of accident. He further submits that, learned Commissioner has not erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company by holding that, deceased was employee of non-applicant No. 1, hence, he prayed that the appeal filed by the claimants may be allowed and the the appeal filed by the Insurance Company may be dismissed. 11 Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that, claimants have failed to prove employer-employee relationship between non-applicant No. 1 and deceased as he i.e. Ramkumar Yadav himself has denied in his deposition that, deceased was his employee. She further submits that, prior to the accident, the offending vehicle was sold by Ramkumar Yadav, who was its registered owner, to claimant No. 5 Hemkunwar Sahu, who is mother of the deceased/employee. Therefore, on this count also, deceased could not be said to be employee of Ramkumar Yadav. Aforesaid facts have been proved by the non-applicant, but the same has been disregarded by the Commissioner, which is against the law, hence she prayed that the appeal filed by the claimants may be set aside. 12 Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No. 1 Ram Kumar Yadav, submits that, prior to accident, he had sold the offending vehicle to claimant No. 5, who is mother of deceased, as such, deceased was not his employee. Therefore, liability cannot be fastened upon him. 13 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 8 available on record of the Commissioner. 14 Firstly, questions of law framed in MAC No. 300/2023 will be considered, which are based on penalty and interest. 15 Provision of penalty and interest has been contemplated in Section 4A of the Act of 1923, which reads thus :- “4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.—(1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall— (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not 9 exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “scheduled bank” means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934). (3-A) The interest and the penalty payable under sub- section (3) shall be paid to the employee or his dependent, as the case may be.” 16 Perusal of aforesaid provision shows that, if employer does not accept liability for compensation to the extent claimed, then he is bound to make provisional payment, which he accepts and the same shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee. Clause 3(b) of Section 4-A of the Act, 1923 provides that, in the opinion of Commissioner, if there is no justification for the delay in payment, then it shall direct to pay penalty on the amount of arrears and interest, after providing opportunity to employer. 17 In instant case, claimants have not brought any fact before the Court as to whether any provisional payment was made to them or not. On the other hand, the Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on the employer having considered the circumstances of the case. No appropriate ground has been brought by the claimants enabling them to get penalty on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. Therefore, answer to the first question of law is given in 10 negative form. 18 So far as interest granted on amount of award is concerned, perusal of the impugned award shows that, the Commissioner has granted interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing claim application, but has imposed condition that, if amount of compensation is not paid within a period of 60 days from the date of award, then aforesaid interest shall be payable. Granting 10% interest, that too, by imposing condition is completely illegal. 19 The provision for payment of interest on amount of compensation has been provided in Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Act of 1923, which has been mentioned in preceding paragraph. 20 Rate of interest payable on the amount of compensation has already been provided in statute i.e. Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act of 1923. So far as starting point for payment of interest is concerned, this issue has been considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shobha Vs. The Chairman, Vitthal Rao Shinde in Civil Appeal No.1860 of 2022 decided on 11-03-2022, in which, it has been held that:- "Therefore, on the death of the employee/deceased immediately, the amount of compensation can be said to be falling due. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would arise immediately on the death of the deceased. Even as per Section 4A(2), in cases, where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the 11 Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would arise from the date on which the deceased died for which he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner. ..." 21 This issue is no more res integra as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das Vs. Divisional Manager (2022 SCC OnLine SC 93) has reiterated the law that compensation is payable within one month from the date when it fell due. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 & 6 has held as under: "5........To set the record straight, the High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. In Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 298], this Court held that interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim in view of the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George [(2012) 12 SCC 540] where it was held that compensation would fall due from the date of the 12 accident. Further, in the recent decision in P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy [Civil Appeal No. 209/2022 decided on 6-1-2022, this Court reiterated that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date of accident while rejecting the submission that the award of interest should be after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest. 6. For the above reasons, we set aside the direction contained in the order of the High Court dated 11 April 2018 by which the order for the payment of interest was deleted. The order for the payment of interest which was issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner, Workmen Compensation shall together with the award of compensation stand restored." 22 In view of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Apex court, it is quite vivid that, award of compensation falls due on the date of occurrence/ accident and computation of interest begins from the date, it fell due i.e. the date of accident and not the date of award, till its realization. In instant case, learned Commissioner has granted conditional interest of 10% on the amount of compensation from the date of award, if amount of compensation is not paid within 60 days. Such condition cannot be imposed by the Commissioner, as claimants have statutory right to get interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of occurrence of accident till its final payment. As such, the conditional interest of 10% granted by the Commissioner is against 13 the provisions of Section 4-A(3)(a). Therefore, the same is set aside and claimants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 % per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of accident i.e. from 1- 10-2013 till final payment of the amount of compensation. Accordingly, 2nd question of law is answered in positive form i.e. in favour of claimants. 23 Now, questions of law framed in MAC No. 112/2023 shall be considered. 24 It is evident from the oral and documentary evidence brought on record that, deceased Rohit Sahu has died when he was returning from Bilaspur to Raipur while driving the offending vehicle, which was owned by non-applicant Ram Kumar Yadav. 25 Non-applicant Ram Kumar Yadav (NAW 1) has stated in his deposition that, on 3-9-2013, he had sold offending vehicle to claimant No. 5 Smt. Hemkunwar Sahu, who is mother of deceased. He has further deposed that, in respect of aforesaid transaction, ‘ वाहन विव्ቅय इकरारनामा’ was executed and notarized between them on 3-9-2013, but he has not proved aforesaid fact by filing/ proving that sale agreement. Though, he has stated that, original sale agreement was possessed by Smt. Hemkunwar Sahu, but no effort has been made by this witness to take recourse to law to compel Smt. Hemkunwar Sahu to produce alleged sale agreement or to prove aforesaid fact by adducing secondary evidence. He has filed alleged photostat copy of the same, but it has no evidentiary value in the eye of law, as the same has not been proved in accordance with law. Claimant No. 1 Parvati Sahu is 14 wife of the deceased and daughter-in-law of Smt. Hemkunwar Sahu, but she has denied the suggestion taken in cross-examination that, her mother-in-law had purchased the offending vehicle from non- applicant No. 1 Ram Kumar Yadav. Thus, on account of lack of lawful and clinching evidence, only on the basis of oral statement of Ram Kumar Yadav (NAW 1), it cannot be held proved that, he had sold offending vehicle to the mother of deceased. 26 Ram Kumar Yadav (NAW 1) has admitted in cross-examination that, offending vehicle was registered in his name, he had obtained insurance policy of it, and he had also obtained the offending vehicle on ‘Supurdnama’ as it was seized by police on account of accident. Though, he has stated that, on being request made by mother of deceased, he had obtained offending vehicle on ‘Supurdnama’, but he has not filed any document in this regard to show the fact that, while getting ‘Supurdnama’ of the offending vehicle, he had said that, he had sold offending vehicle. In view of above discussion, only on the basis of oral statement of Ram Kumar Yadav (NAW 1), it cannot be held proved that, he had sold offending vehicle to the mother of the deceased and since the deceased died while returning from Bilaspur to Raipur after unloading the goods by driving the offending vehicle owned by non-applicant No. 1, he met with an accident and succumbed, therefore, on the basis of preponderance of probability, the Commissioner has not committed any error or mistake by holding that, deceased had died during course of employment and there was relation of employee-employer between the deceased and non- applicant No. 1. 15 27 Accordingly, both the questions of law framed in MAC No. 112/2023 are answered in positive form i.e. in favour of claimants and against non-applicants. 28 In view of above discussion, MAC No. 112/2023 filed by the Insurance company / non-applicant No. 2 is dismissed. MAC No. 300/2023 filed by the claimants/applicants is allowed in part and claimants are held entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, from the date of accident i.e. 1-10- 2013 till its final realization, impugned award is modified to above extent. It is further observed that, remaining amount along with interest, as mentioned above, payable to the claimants, be paid by the Non-applicant No. 2/Insurance company, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. 29 Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak